Pending
in this FCRA case is a motion to compel filed by Plaintiffs
against Defendant CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC.
ECF No. 47. The issues have been fully briefed and a hearing
was held on October 18, 2016. For the following reasons,
Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted in part and
denied in part.

I.
Background

Plaintiffs
bring this action against Defendant CoreLogic Rental Property
Solutions, LLC (“CoreLogic, ” “RPS, ”
or “Defendant”) for its alleged violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et
seq. CoreLogic is a consumer reporting agency that
compiles and maintains files on consumers. It then sells
these consumer reports to management companies and landlords
who use them to make decisions regarding tenants. The reports
sometimes contain errors. A “false positive”
error occurs when a consumer report contains an item, such as
a criminal conviction, which is not attributable to the
individual with whom the particular credit report relates.
For example, CoreLogic's report on Plaintiff Hector
Hernandez allegedly showed that he was convicted of marijuana
possession when that crime was actually committed by a
different individual named “Hector David
Hernandez-Garcia.” A “false negative” error
occurs when a negative item should have been attributed to a
consumer but was not.

The two
named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and three potential
classes, [1] allege that CoreLogic violated several
FCRA provisions. They bring a claim under 15 U.S.C. §
1681e(b), which requires consumer reporting agencies to
“follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy” of the information in a consumer
report about whom the report relates. They also bring a claim
under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2), which requires consumer
reporting agencies to “clearly and accurately disclose
. . . the sources of information” in a consumer report.
Additionally, Plaintiff Hernandez brings a claim under 15
U.S.C. § 1681i for CoreLogic's alleged failure to
conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of his file. ECF No. 13
at 3.

On
August 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery. ECF No. 47. Plaintiffs generally argue that
CoreLogic has refused to produce “the evidence
necessary to establish that Defendant willfully violated
§§ 1681e(b) and 1681g and the evidence needed to
establish that the class claims satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).” ECF No. 47-1 at 4. At the
time this motion was filed, the unresolved discovery disputes
included (1) the production of CoreLogic's databases and
algorithms; (2) evidence suggesting CoreLogic's prior
notice of reporting inaccuracies and studies regarding
matching procedures; (3) discovery related to whether
Plaintiffs' § 1681g class satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P.
23's requirements; (4) discovery regarding
CoreLogic's net worth; (5) Plaintiffs' contention
interrogatory served upon CoreLogic regarding class
certification; (6) CoreLogic's alleged failure to comply
with this Court's Order regarding ESI; and (7)
CoreLogic's alleged failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P.
34. On October 18, 2016, the parties filed a Consent Order
resolving many of their outstanding discovery disputes. ECF
No. 78. What remains are CoreLogic's undisclosed
documents and communications related to CoreLogic's
internal review of its matching process.[2]

As
early as 2012, CoreLogic began reviewing its matching logic
and algorithms to help it identify issues related to
potential consumer report inaccuracies, i.e., the prevalence
of false positives or false negatives. In 2014, CoreLogic
conducted a review of its matching processes, resulting in
certain changes to its matching procedures in late October
2014 (internally referred to as “Phase I” of the
review). It engaged in another review of its matching
processes in 2015 and 2016. CoreLogic refuses to produce
studies, communications, audits, or reports relating to its
review of its matching process, arguing that such documents
are irrelevant, or otherwise protected from being discovered
by the attorney-client privilege and self-evaluative
privilege. It provided Plaintiffs with a privilege log on
August 10, 2016, and by Letter Order dated October 6, 2016,
provided the Court with the undisclosed documents for an
in camera review.

II.
Standard of Review

Rule
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved
in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or
defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or
defense of any other party, including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the
trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

“The
burden is on the party resisting discovery to explain
specifically why its objections, including those based on
irrelevance, are proper given the broad and liberal
construction of federal discovery rules.”
Desrosiers v. MAG Indus. Automation Sys., LLC, 675
F.Supp.2d 598, 601 (D. Md. 2009). Whether to grant or deny a
motion to compel is generally left within a district
court's broad discretion. See Lone Star Steakhouse
& Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922,
929 (4th Cir. 1995) (denial of motions to compel reviewed on
appeal for abuse of discretion); Erdmann v. Preferred
Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988)
(“The scope and conduct of discovery . . . are within
the sound discretion of the district court.”).

III.
Analysis

A.
Purportedly Irrelevant Documents

As a
general rule, parties may obtain discovery regarding any
non-privileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information
need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable so long as
it is proportional to the needs of the case. See Id.
CoreLogic refuses to produce the documents listed on its
privilege log because it argues the documents are not
relevant to Plaintiffs' individual claims under §
1681e(b). ECF No. 54 at 24- 26. Specifically, it states that
“an objective standard is used to assess whether a
credit reporting agency has in place and followed reasonable
procedures to assure that its credit reports achieve maximum
possible accuracy.” Id. at 24 (quoting
Villaflor v. Equifax Info., No. C-09-00329 MMC, 2010
WL 2891627, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the reasonableness of
the procedures used by CoreLogic must be assessed by
reference to the procedures themselves, which are what define
the relevant inquiry, and not any internal commentary on
those procedures. CoreLogic also argues that the documents in
question relate to changes to its matching procedure
implemented both before and after the named Plaintiffs'
reports were generated, and thus do not directly relate to
the particular consumer reports in question. ECF No. 54 at
22-26.

The
Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have alleged, inter
alia, that CoreLogic failed to maintain reasonable
procedures in compliance with § 1681(e). “The
determination regarding the reasonableness of a credit
reporting agency's procedure is normally a question for
trial unless the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the
procedure is beyond question.” Jones v. Equifax,
Inc., No. 3:14CV678, 2015 WL 5092514, at *4 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 27, 2015) (quoting Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC,
617 F.3d 688, 709 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Sarver v.
Experian Info. Solutions, 390 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir.
2004))) (internal quotation marks omitted). Internal
commentary regarding CoreLogic's knowledge of a matching
problem, the steps it took to fix that problem, and the
solutions it considered is relevant to whether
CoreLogic's chosen procedures were, or are, objectively
reasonable. In other words, the objective standard requires
courts to evaluate reasonableness by analyzing what a
reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances,
and by weighing the burden of further action against the
potential harm of creating misleading information. Cain
v. Trans Union LLC, No. C04-1779L, 2006 WL 328409, at *3
(W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2006) (cited by Villaflor, 2010
WL 2891627, at *1). To apply this standard, the Court is
guided by evidence of the circumstances presented to
CoreLogic and the decisions it made under those
circumstances.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally,
Plaintiffs are required to prove CoreLogic violated the FCRA
either negligently under 15 U.S.C. &sect; 1681o or willfully
under &sect; 1681n. Willfulness under the FCRA encompasses
both knowing and reckless conduct. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57-61 (2007). Documents
demonstrating the information CoreLogic had at the time it
considered alternate procedures to limit the number of
consumer report errors, as well as the feasibility of
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.